thegriffon

No-one said homosexuals are automatically paedophiles. But you can't say they're not homosexual just because the boys they sleep with are under-age. They may not be welcome in the gay community, but they are still homosexual (or perhaps bisexual). Is a man who only sleeps with under-age girls not a heterosexual? Of course he is. And it is about sexuality and desire as much as power, more so for many. To say it's not is to be disingenuous. The fact that a certain pathology is involved does not excise it's sexuality. If it was simply about power they'd prey on illegal migrants (for example) and not kids. Why should homosexuals be better people than everyone else?

It could be worse, you could be not selling Mercurys.

The word of God can affect people ehaase, but the addition of "Hebrews 4:12" etc. and the way you say it does not. What does a non-believer care about where it comes from? What does an agnostic care about whether believers should meet together for fellowship and to discuss their understanding of God's will? If you offend people by your "holier than thou" tone and percieved arrogance, how does that attract them to Christ? Show some respect, tailor your message to your audience. If you don't have that gift then ask for it and until you get it just be happy with respectfully saying "As a Christian I believe God says…"

Do remember that paedophiles look for work in areas that give them access to victims and a position of trust—teachers, clergy, scout leaders, youth workers etc.. They abuse the trust of their emploers as well. and for CD/BP, I think most people would accept that a paedophile who preys on boys is gay, as much as one who preys on girls is "straight" (except of course in the rare situations the offender is a woman).

It's the new UN Carens, which is a C-MPV just coming out of a crossover phase (albeit without the ride height and larger wheels).

totters

Quoting scripture to an agnostic is rather poitnless ehaase.

With AFM debuting on the Chinese 3.0 L LZ-series engine later this year, larger North American LZ-series V6s can also be expected to offer AFM in the near future.

Dual VVT is already used on most versions of the HFV6, the first Dual-VVT V6 engine to be sold by anyone (ahead of Toyota which had straight-6s and Mercedes which previously has SOHC V6s). Single VVT (intake) versions include the standard 2.8 L turbos and the decontented 230 hp 3.6 base engine in the Commodore. The rest are all Dual-VVT, including the Direct-injection 3.2 L built for Alfa Romeo and the 2.8 L Twin Turbo concept engine in the Aero-X. For emissions reasons the Solstice GXP's 2.0 Turbo is the first GDI engine offered in NA, but others built by GM include dual-VVT 1.9 and 2.2 L Family II egines for Alfa, and the standard 2.2 Direct for Opel and Fiat. Interestingly the 3.5 L 2GR-FSE in rwd Lexus models has both direct injection and port injection (expensive), switching between modes depending on engine speed, while the smaller 3GR- and 4GR-FSE engines (Toyota's first Dual-VVT V6s, a few months after GM's 3.6 L) in the IS250 and GS300 have a standard direct-injection system.

The overall shape is the same, but the interior will be different and what you can't see beneath the camouflage is very different (rear windows/d-pillar, lights etc.). What you can see is that the side door sheetmetal is different. The Captiva has a defined crease and cutaway running up the side through the door handles, the Vue/Antara does not. I refer again to the AutoBild shots, which have less camouflage: http://www.autobild.de/projektor/galerie.p...rtikel_id=10224

People will be offended enough that "right wing politics" was included, even more when you include Nazism. Don't forget that fascism and Nazism and it's associated racism is connected with left-wing socialism, in both Europe and South Africa. Financially and economically Nazism is best represented by the state capitalism of "Communist" China, and many "left wing" idealogues calling for the "democratic control" of corporations are actually seeking a form of "National Socialism" (whether they realise it or not). Those who add calls for the expulsion of illegal immigrants and less legal immigration (taking jobs from American workers etc.) are even adding elements of racism.

Of course if you under the grace of God you will be "ok", but that doesn't mean your actions are. Despite the pill and better-quality condoms, if you have sex with more than one person you are putting yourself and your partners at risk, and that's just not right. Sex should be a permanent commitment to one person, whether you seek legal sanction or not (and in some states legal registration of a marriage is not required for legal recognition, and in the rest even relationships not legally recognised as "marriage" still have some degree of recognition as an actual marriage). You can't predict the future, but you should be able to say "I am determined to stick by this person, no matter what". Don't allow uncertaintly to be a cop out. Personally I have real doubts whether there is any such thing as "The Right" person. That just becomes another excuse when you decide they're not. Hell, Habakuk was explicitly told to find the wrong woman, and sticky by her even when she sent back to prostitution. You pray, seek advice and confirmation, but the decision come s down to you and you have to stick by it. If you're thinking "this may not work out, but for now I'm committed", you're not going into it with the right frame of mind. You're not called to abstain, you're called to be committed to your partner until they leave you (whether through death or adultery or abandonment), and you're called to love them as Christ loved the church. Despite what society believes "love" is a conscious choice, and being "in love" (something different) is something that (with some degree of co-operation) can be fostered and nurtured to greater heights and depths. (For more about the latter I recommend the series on relationships and marriage by Drs Les and Leslie Parrott, and the autobiographical "A Severe Mercy" by Sheldon van Auken).

Bear in mind the concept of marriage varies widely with cultural tradition. Even in the United states today the legal definition can very between different states. That doesn't give carte blanche, if only because you are called on to not only do no wrong, but also let no-one think you are doing anything wrong. Now Christ made it clear that while recorded in the Bible much of the old law was the law of Moses and influenced by the cultural standards of the day, not the law of God. If anything in some areas God sets a higher standard (which the disciples were quite dismayed by), in others the standards of the old law are completely set aside. In a general overview scripture seems to view marriage as the physical union of a man and woman. Paul makes it clear that this applies to any relationship, even with a prostitute. Christ makes it clear that this bond is forged by God and should not be broken by man except in the case of adultery (which at the time was punishable by death in Jewish courts). Whether sex before a legally recognised marriage is acceptable is a cultural thing, in scripture it seems clear that any sexual relationship has the same status in God's view. If you break up it's the same as breaking a marriage, if you sleep with someone else it's the same as adultery (whether this applies to bigamy or polygamy is another matter, but since it's discouraged it's probably moot). So sex before marriage should be treated exactly like marriage. Paul advises that you get married to avoid such difficulties, and then have plenty of sex to avoid temptation. If you're sleepig with someone, don't break it up, but take it seriously, if they don't want to, let them leave. If you're not, well, you should ask yourself if you're ready to treat this as if you were "legally" married, and how the people around you would look at it. Don't give people any reason to badmouth you, evenif you're confident that God accepts your relationship, you should not do anything to give offense to others.

Catholics have not always been so tolerant of other Christian sects, and many self-styled Catholics still aren't. Thus there is an historical suspician and antipathy toward the Catholic church in many protestant circles. Burning alive tends to do that to people. The corruption and decadence of the Roman church during the renaissance, it's hostility to reform, the drive for centralised authority over the global church, and the reactionary policies of the 18th and 19th centuries to continued challenges to the authority of Rome have all contributed to the perception that the Roman church is opposed to the true Christian faith. The leadership of the Roman church has made a concerted effort to get back to it's roots in recent decades, with reconciliation with the Lutherans over the requirement of faith alone for salvation, a rejection of pagan influences and other reforms. I would not be surprised if they drop the requirement for a vow of celibacy for new priests, although that seems a way off yet. "Liberal" Catholics in "western" countries may not be pleased with all the changes though, as the more "evangelical" and "charismatic" churches in the developing world gain increased influence in Rome (as seen in most recent appointments of cardinals).

The pagan saints and feast days I refer to are more local or regional, and I doubt the local people or even priests paid much attention to the "decommissioning" of certain saints.

I refer to any of several Catholic "superstitions", not part of official doctrine, but which many Catholics believe. In practice the Catholic church tends to accommodate them to give people reassurance when people of other denominations would think this only causes people more grief. Such as, the belief that cremation is forbidden (it is not "recommended" simply because some people need rassurance there will be a body to be resurrected); that if you have the last rites read you will go to heaven and that you won't if they are not etc. Many protestants will criticise the Catholic church for being too accomodating of superstition in general, from loosely slapping a Christian veneer over pagan rituals in local feast days, to the veneration of formerly pagan shrines, to the beatification of certain saints as substitutes for local gods (sometimes even with the same name). This is not something that happens anymore, but in many cases it comes back to bite them when things go too far and the old paganism is revived with a Catholic veneer. New blood comes in and does a double take at what has been tolerated by previous local priests, perhaps for generations.

Well now Z28, now you're getting into a tricky bit of theological and logical debate that isn't particularly clear either way. However, it is fairly clear that unity with Christ isn't jeopardised by anything you do short of turning your back on Christ and rejecting the Spirit. That's kind of the whole point of it all. You can't be good enough therefore God worked out a loophole so you don't have to be. Hence the liberty and not having to worry about the law. In fact even as a "born-again" believer you're expected to sin. While a change is expected it is not instantaneous nor complete in this life. If your faith is genuine you are expected to repent … eventually … but you're not in jeopardy until you do so (and here many people have a problem with the Catholic church for fostering superstitions about salvation for the sake of convenience and peace of mind counter to official doctrine). Now as far as those who vehemently reject a prior confession of faith and turn away from Christ there is argument as to whether thay lose their salvation or whether their "faith" was genuine and therefore effective on the first place. The point is somewhat moot since the only person who really knows for sure if their faith is genuine is God, and since God would know in advance whether you would repent if given the chance. Plenty of people fool themselves or just don't understand what it really involves. You have to examine your heart and ask yourself if you are really commited to God, or are just trying to pull a fast one for what you can get out of it. As I've seen it put "If you care about losing you're salvation, then you probably haven't."As for: "The crux of Christianity is believing in the Resurrection, that Jesus came to this earth to die for our sins as part of God's master plan to save all of humanity. As far as I'm concerned, if you honestly believe that in your heart, you're a Christian …"; "believing" should also include accepting the offer of unity with christ and salvation which that provides the mechanism for. It's a fine point but there are plenty of people who believe it but don't want anything to do with it for one reason or another. As it is written "the devil believes and trembles" (highly paraphrased). Christianity is not for everyone, although genuine Christians who care about others will wish it is. It is fundamentally about wanting to be "one" with God, not about heaven or living forever or the eternal party (a concept later incorporated by European paganism to counter the Christian "threat"). You have to be thrilled with that idea to accept it. If you understand the nature of God and don't like the idea of that kind of future then, well nirvana (extinction) maybe more your thing. Christians would be horrified at the apparent nihilism and destruction in their eyes (and it does lead to a lot of suicide and "mercy" killings), and believe God will also be sorry to lose you, but ultimately it's up to you if that's your idea of bliss.

monty python

For many people though, in all denominations and more so in those with strong family traditions like catholicism (and there are other "Catholic" churches beside the Roman), many people who claim to be of that faith are only so nominally—they say they are but have no real faith, commitment or often any idea of what it is they say they are. It's this nominalism that the disctinction oif being "Born-Again" was created in reaction to. I've heard people who have no current connection with Christianity, no belief in God or Christ, beyond that there maybe something somewhere, who will say "I though I was Methodist because that's were I was sent to Sunday School, but it turns out that I'm actually baptised Church of England." Their "faith" becomes nothing more than a set of rituals to be performed when being married or buried, of less importance than avoiding the number 13. Just saying you are Catholic or Episcopalian or even Baptist (but less so since you have to actually make a confessed commitment to become a member) doesn't mean anything anymore, and hasn't for hundreds of years—even priests and bishops are sometimes vocal about their atheism. People who haven't made a personal commitment to unity with Christ often don't get it, so many of those who are when for some reason they need to know (esp. dating and marriage) find they need to ask "are you born again" instead of merely "are you Christian?". For most people instead being Christian is not about a chosen belief system, but like being Jewish—if you are, you are, even if you're a psychopathic athiest.

It's not actually, although with a heavily disguised model it would be hard to tell. The Saturn/Opel is significantly different to the Captiva, although it's probably similar in size and definitely similar in shape, the details are all different. There have already been many nearly-undisguised shots of the Opel version. It should also be just as big as the current Vue, if not a little bigger.Compare these shots of the S3X/Captiva (13-14) with the following shots of the Antara/Vue (15-16) http://www.autobild.de/projektor/galerie.p...rtikel_id=10224

In relation to Christian Theology (incl. "born-again"), the belief that you must adhere to a strict set of rules for living—such as abstaining from alcohol, not working on certain days, not eating certain foods (often any meat), attending mass so many times, donating so much money, spending so much time in prayer—is to be of weaker faith. Those of stronger faith realise that such rules have no value except in trying to keep a healthy diet. The basic rules of ehaviour are simple-trust God, treat everyone equally and in the way you wish to be treated (with a special responsibility towards your partner and family), look after your health (physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual) and don't do anything for selfish pleasure. The extended rules are - if you think it's wrong then you shouldn't do it, and if you know someone else thinks it's wrong don't let them know you do it.

The "not-drinking" thing is an American addition to conservatiev Christian morality stemming from the temperance movement and the historical propaganda of an early pasteurized juice company. Elsewhere it's more about self-control in relation to alcohol and other pleasures. As far as being "Born-Again" it technically refers to making a personal commitment to spiritual unity with Christ, rather than a purely nominal or traditional affiliation, or a philosophical sympathy. The behavioral changes, which may be radical, should be driven and empowered by that, but are often fabricated to comply with purely cultural standards of piety instead (something recognized and condemned in scripture). For those who make a show of their faith and piety, remind them that humility is a "fruit of the spirit", and that those who recieve recognition from men for their shows of righteousness will recieve none from God.

Nope I meant sedans. I did not say "low-volume", though, just "lower" volume than the particular brand's volume sedans.

As it now stands (far from certain) most W-bodies or their replacements will move to Zeta, but the LaCrosse will stay fwd on the lwb Global Midsize architecture. However in terms of market position (size and transaction price): Grand Prix>>G6 Impala>>next Malibu With the Zeta sedans being lower-volume premium products.